Matshock wrote on Aug 14, 2012, 01:33:I can see this is winding down. I learned one new thing about this late generation of the left though- they use a manipulative practice I expect from small children and attempt to apply it to issues far beyond their grasp.

Taking what I or others say out of context and then attempting to force me to answer for it is something I expect from a seven year old- literally. I know pre-teen children who know better than to do that.

Employers and anyone else that can help you advance in your life will shun you if you ever try this on them- even once; it's that disturbing to hear coming from a young adult.

Europe is experiencing a sharp increase in violent crime, the USA is still declining as of the beginning of this year anyway. The UK is practically on fire compared to the USA.

I won't be returning to this thread.

The real problem is idiots classifying anyone that questions them as "the left."

I'm a guy that just yesterday said Bill Clinton's administration is directly at fault for the worldwide economic meltdown and that Obama, at best, hasn't really accomplished anything...

But for the sake of this guy's argument, I'm "the left."I haven't even said if I think banning guns is a good idea (I do not), nor have I implied that. I just questioned something he said to see where it was coming from and, despite arguments of no thin skin, he went on self-destructive defense mode.

He also has yet to tell me what I've said out-of-context and correct me. Instead he reposts the exact piece I do, and tells me it's out-of-context.

He can talk all he wants about what employers hate, but allow me to say that if your boss ever asks you what's going on with a project, and you explode with a "stop questioning me!" hissy fit, call him "the left" and storm off, well, you're fired.

I can see this is winding down. I learned one new thing about this late generation of the left though- they use a manipulative practice I expect from small children and attempt to apply it to issues far beyond their grasp.

Taking what I or others say out of context and then attempting to force me to answer for it is something I expect from a seven year old- literally. I know pre-teen children who know better than to do that.

Employers and anyone else that can help you advance in your life will shun you if you ever try this on them- even once; it's that disturbing to hear coming from a young adult.

Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 17:31:Well, I'm not really detracting you, so your arguments regarding comprehension are kind of amusing. Your ridiculous combativeness is making me somewhat of a detractor, though.

And your statement and my understanding of it are pretty much identical...

Sorry you're so defensive.

Yeah that's why I decided not to continue after simply providing some clarification on the quoted doctor's metaphor was met with "Mass shooters are atheists!" It's like attempting to conflate gun control and healthcare wasn't enough, now we gotta throw religion in there too. I suspect everything is Obama and the atheists' fault.

Well, he got angry when I said he made a claim about "most religions," so I'm assuming he's not including Islam, either.

I was curious about his position, now I'm just thinking he's a loon. I was even trying to help, because the whole "they'd just use hammers!" argument will guarantee the user loses any argument they enter.

Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 17:31:Well, I'm not really detracting you, so your arguments regarding comprehension are kind of amusing. Your ridiculous combativeness is making me somewhat of a detractor, though.

And your statement and my understanding of it are pretty much identical...

Sorry you're so defensive.

Yeah that's why I decided not to continue after simply providing some clarification on the quoted doctor's metaphor was met with "Mass shooters are atheists!" It's like attempting to conflate gun control and healthcare wasn't enough, now we gotta throw religion in there too. I suspect everything is Obama and the atheists' fault.

Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 15:00:Well, guns clearly make it worse. Had the Batman shooter had a hammer instead of a gun with a 200 round magazine there would have been far fewer casualties, and stabbing/hammering someone is certainly more visceral and harder to do than merely pulling a trigger (I'd wager most of these people are too cowardly to do that.)

But yes, it'd still be happening, just with fewer casualties and likely fewer incidents as a whole.

And it's amusing that you're saying religion would solve this. I'm pretty certain there's an area in this world full of religious bombings that would disagree wholly, as well as a few periods of history full of religious inquisitions and crusades that would also disagree.

Holmes had a 100 round magazine that jammed- and they are well known for jamming by anyone that even bothered to read up on the case itself before posting about it.

I'll pretty much guarantee you that the majority of the wounds were caused by the pump-action shotgun and most likely the majority of the deaths as well although that may have been the handgun.

That aside- not likely. If you take away all guns they will find a way to make explosives and use those. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them.

No, but you did say that these people more and more aren't part of the values of most religions. Which would imply that you feel that, if they did buy into the values of most religions, they would not do this.Did you mean for that to be interpreted in any other way?

Not sure how you think people having guns means they're easier to kill with other means, either. Because we're not afraid of guns we're harder to kill with other weapons?

I didn't say anything like "most religions". I said something very specific.

Your second question has nothing to do with my post about guns either.

Bye.

For the rest of you- that shooting in TX looks like an eviction gone bad, not a mass shooting. In places like Chicago that's called "Monday" and they don't report it in the news.

"Bye?"

Ok. I suppose you mean you're ignoring me. My questions were that bad? I haven't even taken an actual side on this, I'm just questioning on yours. Thin-skin.

You didn't say "most religions," you said "christian and buddhist religions." Not sure why you're splitting the hair here. Do you not want to include Hinduism in that? Or is it some other?

My second question directly relates to your post, too. Direct quote:. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them. My second question was asking you to elaborate on that. How can you deny having said it?

Here's what I actually said:

IMO these people are all ideologues that aren't constrained by the kind of ethics normally associated with kind-minded Christian or Buddhist and the like faiths- or at a minimum a nurturing atomic or at a bare minimum a nurturing extended family. More and more of us have none of the above- the state is our mother and our father and it is a cold, distant household.

I see many important concepts in print that you are pretending aren't there. Does this kindergarten-level of manipulation work on your peers?

As for my skin- you apparently missed the two pages of unsuccessful attempts to discredit my ideas before you arrived.

But you are by far the least of my detractors in this thread- and that is indeed a low point.

Well, I'm not really detracting you, so your arguments regarding comprehension are kind of amusing. Your ridiculous combativeness is making me somewhat of a detractor, though.

And your statement and my understanding of it are pretty much identical...

Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 15:00:Well, guns clearly make it worse. Had the Batman shooter had a hammer instead of a gun with a 200 round magazine there would have been far fewer casualties, and stabbing/hammering someone is certainly more visceral and harder to do than merely pulling a trigger (I'd wager most of these people are too cowardly to do that.)

But yes, it'd still be happening, just with fewer casualties and likely fewer incidents as a whole.

And it's amusing that you're saying religion would solve this. I'm pretty certain there's an area in this world full of religious bombings that would disagree wholly, as well as a few periods of history full of religious inquisitions and crusades that would also disagree.

Holmes had a 100 round magazine that jammed- and they are well known for jamming by anyone that even bothered to read up on the case itself before posting about it.

I'll pretty much guarantee you that the majority of the wounds were caused by the pump-action shotgun and most likely the majority of the deaths as well although that may have been the handgun.

That aside- not likely. If you take away all guns they will find a way to make explosives and use those. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them.

No, but you did say that these people more and more aren't part of the values of most religions. Which would imply that you feel that, if they did buy into the values of most religions, they would not do this.Did you mean for that to be interpreted in any other way?

Not sure how you think people having guns means they're easier to kill with other means, either. Because we're not afraid of guns we're harder to kill with other weapons?

I didn't say anything like "most religions". I said something very specific.

Your second question has nothing to do with my post about guns either.

Bye.

For the rest of you- that shooting in TX looks like an eviction gone bad, not a mass shooting. In places like Chicago that's called "Monday" and they don't report it in the news.

"Bye?"

Ok. I suppose you mean you're ignoring me. My questions were that bad? I haven't even taken an actual side on this, I'm just questioning on yours. Thin-skin.

You didn't say "most religions," you said "christian and buddhist religions." Not sure why you're splitting the hair here. Do you not want to include Hinduism in that? Or is it some other?

My second question directly relates to your post, too. Direct quote:. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them. My second question was asking you to elaborate on that. How can you deny having said it?

Here's what I actually said:

IMO these people are all ideologues that aren't constrained by the kind of ethics normally associated with kind-minded Christian or Buddhist and the like faiths- or at a minimum a nurturing atomic or at a bare minimum a nurturing extended family. More and more of us have none of the above- the state is our mother and our father and it is a cold, distant household.

I see many important concepts in print that you are pretending aren't there. Does this kindergarten-level of manipulation work on your peers?

As for my skin- you apparently missed the two pages of unsuccessful attempts to discredit my ideas before you arrived.

But you are by far the least of my detractors in this thread- and that is indeed a low point.

Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 15:00:Well, guns clearly make it worse. Had the Batman shooter had a hammer instead of a gun with a 200 round magazine there would have been far fewer casualties, and stabbing/hammering someone is certainly more visceral and harder to do than merely pulling a trigger (I'd wager most of these people are too cowardly to do that.)

But yes, it'd still be happening, just with fewer casualties and likely fewer incidents as a whole.

And it's amusing that you're saying religion would solve this. I'm pretty certain there's an area in this world full of religious bombings that would disagree wholly, as well as a few periods of history full of religious inquisitions and crusades that would also disagree.

Holmes had a 100 round magazine that jammed- and they are well known for jamming by anyone that even bothered to read up on the case itself before posting about it.

I'll pretty much guarantee you that the majority of the wounds were caused by the pump-action shotgun and most likely the majority of the deaths as well although that may have been the handgun.

That aside- not likely. If you take away all guns they will find a way to make explosives and use those. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them.

No, but you did say that these people more and more aren't part of the values of most religions. Which would imply that you feel that, if they did buy into the values of most religions, they would not do this.Did you mean for that to be interpreted in any other way?

Not sure how you think people having guns means they're easier to kill with other means, either. Because we're not afraid of guns we're harder to kill with other weapons?

I didn't say anything like "most religions". I said something very specific.

Your second question has nothing to do with my post about guns either.

Bye.

For the rest of you- that shooting in TX looks like an eviction gone bad, not a mass shooting. In places like Chicago that's called "Monday" and they don't report it in the news.

"Bye?"

Ok. I suppose you mean you're ignoring me. My questions were that bad? I haven't even taken an actual side on this, I'm just questioning on yours. Thin-skin.

You didn't say "most religions," you said "christian and buddhist religions." Not sure why you're splitting the hair here. Do you not want to include Hinduism in that? Or is it some other?

My second question directly relates to your post, too. Direct quote:. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them. My second question was asking you to elaborate on that. How can you deny having said it?

Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 15:00:Well, guns clearly make it worse. Had the Batman shooter had a hammer instead of a gun with a 200 round magazine there would have been far fewer casualties, and stabbing/hammering someone is certainly more visceral and harder to do than merely pulling a trigger (I'd wager most of these people are too cowardly to do that.)

But yes, it'd still be happening, just with fewer casualties and likely fewer incidents as a whole.

And it's amusing that you're saying religion would solve this. I'm pretty certain there's an area in this world full of religious bombings that would disagree wholly, as well as a few periods of history full of religious inquisitions and crusades that would also disagree.

Holmes had a 100 round magazine that jammed- and they are well known for jamming by anyone that even bothered to read up on the case itself before posting about it.

I'll pretty much guarantee you that the majority of the wounds were caused by the pump-action shotgun and most likely the majority of the deaths as well although that may have been the handgun.

That aside- not likely. If you take away all guns they will find a way to make explosives and use those. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them.

No, but you did say that these people more and more aren't part of the values of most religions. Which would imply that you feel that, if they did buy into the values of most religions, they would not do this.Did you mean for that to be interpreted in any other way?

Not sure how you think people having guns means they're easier to kill with other means, either. Because we're not afraid of guns we're harder to kill with other weapons?

I didn't say anything like "most religions". I said something very specific.

Your second question has nothing to do with my post about guns either.

Bye.

For the rest of you- that shooting in TX looks like an eviction gone bad, not a mass shooting. In places like Chicago that's called "Monday" and they don't report it in the news.

Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 15:00:Well, guns clearly make it worse. Had the Batman shooter had a hammer instead of a gun with a 200 round magazine there would have been far fewer casualties, and stabbing/hammering someone is certainly more visceral and harder to do than merely pulling a trigger (I'd wager most of these people are too cowardly to do that.)

But yes, it'd still be happening, just with fewer casualties and likely fewer incidents as a whole.

And it's amusing that you're saying religion would solve this. I'm pretty certain there's an area in this world full of religious bombings that would disagree wholly, as well as a few periods of history full of religious inquisitions and crusades that would also disagree.

Holmes had a 100 round magazine that jammed- and they are well known for jamming by anyone that even bothered to read up on the case itself before posting about it.

I'll pretty much guarantee you that the majority of the wounds were caused by the pump-action shotgun and most likely the majority of the deaths as well although that may have been the handgun.

That aside- not likely. If you take away all guns they will find a way to make explosives and use those. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them.

No, but you did say that these people more and more aren't part of the values of most religions. Which would imply that you feel that, if they did buy into the values of most religions, they would not do this.Did you mean for that to be interpreted in any other way?

Not sure how you think people having guns means they're easier to kill with other means, either. Because we're not afraid of guns we're harder to kill with other weapons?

Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 15:00:Well, guns clearly make it worse. Had the Batman shooter had a hammer instead of a gun with a 200 round magazine there would have been far fewer casualties, and stabbing/hammering someone is certainly more visceral and harder to do than merely pulling a trigger (I'd wager most of these people are too cowardly to do that.)

But yes, it'd still be happening, just with fewer casualties and likely fewer incidents as a whole.

And it's amusing that you're saying religion would solve this. I'm pretty certain there's an area in this world full of religious bombings that would disagree wholly, as well as a few periods of history full of religious inquisitions and crusades that would also disagree.

Holmes had a 100 round magazine that jammed- and they are well known for jamming by anyone that even bothered to read up on the case itself before posting about it.

I'll pretty much guarantee you that the majority of the wounds were caused by the pump-action shotgun and most likely the majority of the deaths as well although that may have been the handgun.

That aside- not likely. If you take away all guns they will find a way to make explosives and use those. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them.

Well, guns clearly make it worse. Had the Batman shooter had a hammer instead of a gun with a 200 round magazine there would have been far fewer casualties, and stabbing/hammering someone is certainly more visceral and harder to do than merely pulling a trigger (I'd wager most of these people are too cowardly to do that.)

But yes, it'd still be happening, just with fewer casualties and likely fewer incidents as a whole.

And it's amusing that you're saying religion would solve this. I'm pretty certain there's an area in this world full of religious bombings that would disagree wholly, as well as a few periods of history full of religious inquisitions and crusades that would also disagree.

—Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

And then he explains the metaphor...

"There's sort of a contagion phenomenon" after a shooting, where people feel they need to have a gun for protection or retaliation, he said.

Are you going to say that gun sales don't jump up after mass shootings?

Typically when people say something is "contagious" like this, they mean in the way Malcolm Gladwell describes in The Turning Point. The story he tells there is of contagious suicides on some pacific island. Essentially suicide rates amongst young boys are skyhigh because it's just a thing there. Someone does it, then someone else does it, and it becomes a culturally accepted thing. Somene doing it puts the ideas in the next boy's head and makes him think it's an acceptable choice.

That's what these shootings become. They are contagious, as the more common they are the more that will occur, and the more that occur the more common they become.

Hence the Texas shooting going on as I'm posting this.

You're using the correct concept. The doctor in the article is trying to dumb it down to gun ownership as the ultimate cause here because again, the people funding his "research" want that result.

I'm saying if it weren't guns it would be knives and if if weren't knives it would be hammers, etc. because it is the people doing the killing that are the ultimate cause, not the tools they use. Just wait until these kooks get some explosives.

IMO these people are all ideologues that aren't constrained by the kind of ethics normally associated with kind-minded Christian or Buddhist and the like faiths- or at a minimum a nurturing atomic or at a bare minimum a nurturing extended family. More and more of us have none of the above- the state is our mother and our father and it is a cold, distant household.

—Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

And then he explains the metaphor...

"There's sort of a contagion phenomenon" after a shooting, where people feel they need to have a gun for protection or retaliation, he said.

Are you going to say that gun sales don't jump up after mass shootings?

Typically when people say something is "contagious" like this, they mean in the way Malcolm Gladwell describes in The Turning Point. The story he tells there is of contagious suicides on some pacific island. Essentially suicide rates amongst young boys are skyhigh because it's just a thing there. Someone does it, then someone else does it, and it becomes a culturally accepted thing. Somene doing it puts the ideas in the next boy's head and makes him think it's an acceptable choice.

That's what these shootings become. They are contagious, as the more common they are the more that will occur, and the more that occur the more common they become.

—Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

And then he explains the metaphor...

"There's sort of a contagion phenomenon" after a shooting, where people feel they need to have a gun for protection or retaliation, he said.

Are you going to say that gun sales don't jump up after mass shootings?

Thanks for not even trying to argue that .gov isn't trying to use health care to go after the right to bear arms- they are right now.

To answer your question, sales do spike sometimes- but mass shootings don't. Perhaps spikes in gun sales are more of an immune response than an infection? Or is there no difference when it is politically expedient to ignore it?

—Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

And then he explains the metaphor...

"There's sort of a contagion phenomenon" after a shooting, where people feel they need to have a gun for protection or retaliation, he said.

Are you going to say that gun sales don't jump up after mass shootings?

—Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

...now the article did bury in its center the fact that violent crime and gun ownership trends have been moving counter to one another for the last 20+ years- i.e. more guns and less violent crime. But then they ignore their own research and end the article with the whole "guns are an icky disease" narrative.

Why should I let these people tell me what to do everyday again? Anyone?

nin wrote on Aug 9, 2012, 13:54:So you're totally backtracking now and admitting it's not going to happen here? Our government won't have healthcare rules relating to bearing arms, the number of children you can have, what you eat, and where you can drive, and how old you're allowed to be? Like you said in post 13?

I don't care about your links, I'm talking about what you were claiming was going to happen. Stop trying to draw attention away from what you said.

As soon as they are able- which again will likely be never with folks like you pulling the train. That comforts me.

PS you're spending a lot of mental energy demanding a date- I never offered one. Get help.

So you're totally backtracking now and admitting it's not going to happen here? Our government won't have healthcare rules relating to bearing arms, the number of children you can have, what you eat, and where you can drive, and how old you're allowed to be? Like you said in post 13?

I don't care about your links, I'm talking about what you were claiming was going to happen. Stop trying to draw attention away from what you said.

Can you please tell me when we'll have healthcare rules relating to bearing arms, the number of children you can have, what you eat, and where you can drive, and how old you're allowed to be?

I'd like a date to make on the calendar, please.

Thanks!

The materials you just ignored shows in print that the NHS can arbitrarily delay treatment if they think you need to lose weight or stop smoking. They can do the same to women just because they have breasts.

The Liverpool Care Path (which you are also ignoring) is a well documented practice in which elderly people in the NHS are denied all care except pain killers when they are arbitrarily deemed too old to go on living at the state's expense.

But to answer your question directly- never in the USA. Because those attempting to implement them will fold when push comes to shove because they are cowards. Look at you. You can't even bear to read what is found for you.